It's nearly an impossible question to answer...but people can always speculate, right?A lot of the nations that are rapidly developing have a somewhat efficient political structure. Debatable as to what a morally good political system is-there may not be one, besides a Theocracy- but that is a different question entirely. People in the developed world have to ask themselves the question, "AM I OKAY" WITH WEALTH DISPARITY AND INEQUALITY?" -i.e. within their native country and among each developed country compared to the first world. That's a big issue I plan to write a hub about soon, and would recommend a book called, "The Spirit Level."

"Developed" societies imply its industrialized. Industrialized societies require - based on my own research - an occupational ranking innate culture i.e. the majority of males accept occupational titles as true ranking symbols to stratify their male group. Up until 1964, only one male group (racial group in this context) produced an occupational ranking society outside the Anglo race :: Japanese. I believe today, the world has witnessed the total extent of male groups (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) capable of successfully creating occupational ranking systems/ societies. Occupational ranking - again, in my opinion - is based on an innate culture. Anglos and some Asian male groups clearly possess this innate culture. Males of African descent (IMO anyways) clearly do not. I also believe that some male groups have less of a resistance level to this type of society than other male groups. I'm still working on this ideology - long way to go. BTW, I believe there is nothing superior about a male group moving from a non-occupational ranking society to an occupational ranking one i.e. those male groups that can create occupational ranking systems are not superior to those male groups that cannot create one. Occupational ranking just might be the WORST type of societal structure. Lots of niceties (sinecures)... but over the long run they seem to become unstable and do produce a lot of violence. Just my opinion here...

are we talking material development only? if so, this answer goes way off course~

as long as it takes for developed countries to back off and allow them to stand on their own two feet.

i think that developing countries would develop much quicker without the help of the developed ones...that could be taken horribly wrong...

i just mean that throwing money, food and medicine at developing countries only sometimes, isn't helping.

it's like babies, if we never let them stand on their own two feet, we'll eventually find them grown up, unable to walk and too big to carry around anymore...

developed countries could help by educating developing countries, but nursing an infant back to health and then leaving them to suffer all over again is only prolonging the problem...as a small example

with all the money that's been put into superficial aid, there could definately be clean water worldwide at least!!!

i know this all sounds a bit contradicting, but i have a lot to say on the matter...and typing just isn't quite the same as talking

i bet the same percentage of depressed people are here in the uk as in africa...we're all still finding our way; just some countries pretend not to be

Indicators of development are debatable. Developing counties will take a long time to develop because of exploitation by former colonizers, policies of former colonizers, and economic systems superimposed upon them by developed countries. Courage and will to assert independence -- power -- is the main driving force for development that may be lacking in developing countries. read more

I think it will still take quite a bit of time. Much of their economic growth is the product of tolerating labor practices not tolerated in developed countries. Until this changes, they cannot be considered developed nations. The catch is that when they change this, they will lose their appeal to the multinational corporations that exploit their lax policies.

A tough but interesting question. I think that there is no cut and dried answer; achievement of "developed" status (which begs a definition, by the way) may well take different amounts of time for different countries in different circumstances. China's economic growth lately has been explosive, while some countries de-colonized around the same time still lag.

The next question would probably be "What makes a difference to the time required?" Unfortunately, that's an even tougher question. Government, natural resources, market access, and external political forces probably all come into it, and perhaps never in quite the same combination twice.

Pretty simple, as long as it takes them to wake up mentality. there is no difference except in their own mindset. Remember we all live in the same world.Develop has been misconstrued or simply limited to material things in form of infrastructure.But is that development in the real sense of the word? i think develop has more to do with individual mindset rather than on the bases of who has more this and that, who has better roads, hospital, power etc whatever you can think of.Let the world begin to measure development by the conscious development of the human mind. thank you.

Is corruption correlated with the development of a country?The general belief is that developing countries are more corrupt than developed countries? Is this true? How is corruption measured and ranked?

What makes a developed country better to live in?India is a developing country and I have many personal complaints when it comes to many things -politics, environmental, social issues among others so I am wondering why...

Why there is still a question mark on Women's safty in developed countries ?Like backward countries still there is danger to Women's safty in developed countries. Still they need a male partner or family to stay...